Ex Parte Angell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

12333256 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/333,256 12/11/2008 Robert Lee Angell
79230 7590 08/01/2016
Law Office of Jim Boice
3839 Bee Cave Road
Suite 201
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
END920080105US 1 6005
EXAMINER
ARAQUE JR, GERARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
J ennifer@BoiceIP.com
Emily@BoiceIP.com
Jim@BoiceIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LEE ANGELL,
ROBERT R. FRIEDLANDER, and JAMES R. KRAEMER
Appeal2014-005007 1
Application 12/333,256
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2014-005007
Application 12/333,256
Appellants' invention is related generally to generating risk cohorts.
(Spec., para. 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method of generating general risk
scores for general risk cohorts, the computer implemented
method comprising:
a processor receiving digital sensor data associated with a
general risk cohort from a set of multimodal sensors, wherein the
digital sensor data comprises metadata describing attributes
associated with at least one member of the general risk cohort,
wherein each member of the general risk cohort is a category of
average objects, wherein the category is represented by a range
of data describing objects belonging to the category, wherein the
range of data includes data that falls within a predetermined
range of multiple values, and wherein the set of multimodal
sensors comprises a biometric sensor that captures data that
describes an external physical attribute of said at least one
member of the general risk cohort, wherein the external physical
attribute is one of a group consisting of a fingerprint, a palm
print, a retinal pattern, and an iris pattern described by said at
least one member of the general risk cohort;
the processor generating a general risk score for the
general risk cohort based on selected risk factors and the
attributes associated with the at least one member of the general
risk cohort, wherein the general risk score describes a probability
of an event occurring based on the selected risk factors and the
attributes associated with the at least one member of the general
risk cohort; and
the processor, responsive to a determination that the
general risk score exceeds a risk threshold, initiating a response
action.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1---6, 8, and
10-20 of application 12/333,321.
2
Appeal2014-005007
Application 12/333,256
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 6-20 of Angell
'144 (US 8, 117, 144 B2, iss. Feb 14, 2012) and claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, and
13-20 of Angell (US 8,190,544 B2, iss. May 29, 2012).
Claims 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Johnson (US 6,553,336 Bl, iss. Apr. 22, 2003) and
Official Notice.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Johnson and Brandon C. Welsh, et al., "Effects of Improved Street
Lighting on Crime," Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2008: 13, Sept. 24,
2008.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Johnson.
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting Rejections
Appellants do not advance arguments relative to the provisional and
non-provisional double patenting rejections, except to assert they are willing
to file a terminal disclaimer. (Reply Br. 2). Therefore, we affirm proforma
the double patenting rejections.
Rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Independent claims 1 and 20 each recite language substantially
equivalent to "generating a general risk score for the general risk cohort."
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson fails to
disclose generating a risk score, as claimed in the passages cited by the
3
Appeal2014-005007
Application 12/333,256
Examiner. (Appeal Br. 8-9). As to the "generating a risk score" limitation,
the Examiner cites the following sections of Johnson: column 4, lines 2-17;
column 6, line 63 to column 7, line 5; column 13, line 59 to column 14, line
6; column 14, lines 18--46; column 15, line 54 to column 16, line 10; column
19, lines 20-31; column 20, line 65 to column 21, line 26; column 20, lines
34--51; column 23, lines 13-26; and column 25, line 20 to column 27, line
65. (Final Act. 8).
The cited sections of Johnson disclose a system for monitoring objects
using sensors, providing alerts and informational reports about the
monitored objects, and providing some control functions for objects, such as
turning services on and off. Johnson does not relate to determining levels of
risk, and does not disclose in the cited sections any risk score or generating
of a risk calculation.
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claim 1, because the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for at least the generating of a
risk score. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-10
that were rejected along with claim 1.
Rejection ofclaims 11-15 under 35U.S.C.§103(a)
Independent claim 11 recites "code configured to generate a general
risk score for the general risk cohort."
Although not argued by Appellants, the Examiner cites to the same
sections of Johnson for the code "to generate a general risk score" as for
similar language recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 26). For the same reasons
we set forth above at claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection under 35
4
Appeal2014-005007
Application 12/333,256
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 11, because the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness for the generating of a risk score, which is
not disclosed or suggested by the cited portions of Johnson. We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 12-15 rejected along with claim
11.
Rejection of claims 16--19 under 35U.S.C.§103(a)
Independent claim 16 recites "code configured to generate a general
risk score for the general risk cohort."
Although not argued by Appellants, the Examiner cites to the same
sections of Johnson for the code "to generate a general risk score" as for
similar language recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 40-41). For the same
reasons we set forth above at claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 16, because the Examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness for the generating of a risk score, which is
not disclosed or suggested by the cited portions of Johnson. We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 17-19 rejected along with claim
16.
Rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Independent claim 20 recites a risk assessment engine that "generates
a general risk score for the general risk cohort."
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson fails to
disclose generating a risk score as claimed (Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply
Br. 5), for the same reasons we set forth above at claim 1. For this reason,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal2014-005007
Application 12/333,256
DECISION
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-20.
We affirm pro form a the rejections under the provisional and non-
provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6